K.K. APPARELS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(2), CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

2.0 At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assesse pointed out that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order without hearing the assesse and has only reiterated the AO’s action. According to the Ld.AR, the assesse didn’t receive any notices from the Office of the Ld.CIT(A), which prevented the assesse from participating in the proceedings. Therefore, he pleaded for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A).

3.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assesse.

4.0 We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order qua assesse. According to the assesse, it has not received any notices due to technical glitches. Be that as it may, it should be borne in mind that if an assesse is aggrieved by the Assessment Order, he has statutory right of appeal before the First Appellate Authority and such a right would be futile, if the First Appellate Authority doesn’t give proper opportunity of hearing to the assesse.

Therefore, for the ends of justice and fair play, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assesse, and therefore, set-aside the impugned order of Ld CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to his file; and the assesse is directed to file written submissions/relevant documents to substantiate the grounds of appeal and the Ld.CIT(A) to pass order in accordance to law after hearing the assesse.

5.0 In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 9th August, 2024 at Chennai.